Author
Topic: where did matter come from? (Read 18023 times)

I don't personally see the idea of something originating from nothing to be that problematic. If what you start with is a state of true nothingness, then the laws of physics and logic don't exist.

I don't see why not. The laws of physics apply no nothing too. E.g. the total energy of a an empty system is zero and remains that way so that energy is conserved. Maxwell's equations hold good in an empty space even though they're concerned only with empty space with no fields etc.

A universe where nothing happens does obey the laws of physics as far as I'm aware.

I'm talking about a state of absolute nothingness. No universe, no space, no time.

Yup. And no laws of physics which could be violated. But what does that matter. There;s no reason to assume that such a state ever existed. And even using the word "ever" means that there was a time for it.

I'm talking about a state of absolute nothingness. No universe, no space, no time.

Yup. And no laws of physics which could be violated. But what does that matter. There;s no reason to assume that such a state ever existed. And even using the word "ever" means that there was a time for it.

So what was the point about this nothingness again anyway?

There is no reason to assume that such a state never existed. Therefore it should not be excluded from consideration.

I won't push the issue, as it is basically philosophical and I've been locking swords with DonQuichotte over such things so much lately that I'd rather not have another unprovable argument on my hands.

There is no reason to assume that such a state never existed. Therefore it should not be excluded from consideration.

That's just poor logic. The same thing could be said about fairies, witches, ghosts and flying saucers. In the context in which I made the statement in which this is a response, things that aren't observed in that sense should never be considered. There's an infinite about of things which never been observed and are not considered for that reason.

There's no justification for that. In quantum mechanics particles are still particles regardless of whether we know where they are or not. When we observe them they then have a position. But before that they're still particles.

Quote from: webplodder

Before observation a "particle" is just a potential ...

Not only incorrect but meaningless. There's no meaning to "is just a potential" in the context you use it here.

Quote from: webplodder

It is often said that ...

Something isn't more true merely because of the number of times it's been said.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.